Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Noor Taleb

[Closed/Review]Don’t judge me

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Noor Taleb said:

Thank you everyone for taking out the time from your busy day to help me

God BLESS

:sign_merci:

Please take some sesame snaps, they didn't go down as well as anticipated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

There is difference between literal words and physical forms. With literal words, you cannot confine a existing thing in your imagination except that you know that it exists. In physical form, you contain a body and say that it looked exactly like that. Besides that, words are formless such as let us pick word God, in Arabic it is written as  اللہ in English written as "God" and in other languages with different set of words. Where as idols have same shape throughout the world and every Hindu whether it be in England or in India, uses same idol. That is why Allah (عزّ وجلّ) preferred words which serve the purpose of his knowledge that no one could sketch his being in imagination but be aware of his name. 

Secondly, in Islam, the sacred personalities following Allah (عزّ وجلّ) forbade to depict themselves with portraits or idols, the reason of this is that it brings bad practices such as some considering the idols begin to assume or imagine form of God as well and think that He is conceivable which is indeed wrong. Besides, idols are made out of mud and the person is not like the idol nor idol is like the person. But, words are original such as Muhammad is name of Prophet and it will always be his name, no artist can make it or break it, it will always be like this stored in minds and used in tongues. So, it would have been better if you would have venerated God through the names of Shiva and Krishna instead of bowing before their idols.

No, there is a difference between (the writing and the speaking of)  “اللہ” and “God”.   The former is deemed sacred by the Qur'an and the latter isn’t.   The very sounds and the writing of the Qur'an are a theophany of God and as such have a theurgic effect.  They are a very direct and palpable way of touching, feeling and hearing the Presence of God.  I am not speaking out of conjecture or just ideas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

No, there is a difference between (the writing and the speaking of)  “اللہ” and “God”.   The former is deemed sacred by the Qur'an and the latter isn’t.   The very sounds and the writing of the Qur'an are a theophany of God and as such have a theurgic effect.  They are a very direct and palpable way of touching, feeling and hearing the Presence of God.  I am not speaking out of conjecture or just ideas.  

So, you are saying that it is manifestation of God ? Do you look like your name ? or Do I look like my name ? Name is my identity not what I am. Allah is actually a word to imply towards creator and not Allah itself is a word. If you agree, you could see the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

So, you are saying that it is manifestation of God ? Do you look like your name ? or Do I look like my name ? Name is my identity not what I am. Allah is actually a word to imply towards creator and not Allah itself is a word. If you agree, you could see the difference. 

This is something you don’t seem to understand.  Why do you think in the traditions we are taught to name your children good names?  Because they have an effect on the named person.  And no, it isn’t arbitrary that Seyyidna Muhammad (S) for example was named “Muhammad” or Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was named “Ali. Etc etc.  it also is also not an accident that you were named what you were named by your parents. 

There is a reality associated with every name.  There’s is a power in naming anything.  When you name something you have a power of seeing it in a certain way.  Traditionally we are taught to give names to everything.  

For example, I have named my carpet that I pray on “Mumina”, my car “Ihsan”, the plant on one corner of my room “Asr”, another plant is “Layla”.  There’s is a power to naming anything.  And the greatest of all names is the name God has chosen for us to connect with him “Allah”.  There is a mysterious connection between that and God Himself.  This is why we NEED revelation.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

This is something you don’t seem to understand.  Why do you think in the traditions we are taught to name your children good names?  Because they have an effect on the named person.  And no, it isn’t arbitrary that Seyyidna Muhammad (S) for example was named “Muhammad” or Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was named “Ali. Etc etc.  it also is t an accident that you were named what you were named by your parents. 

There is a reality associated with every name.  There’s is a power in naming anything.  When you name something you have a power of seeing it in a certain way.  Traditionally we are taught to give names to everything.  

For example, I have named my carpet that I pray on “Mumina”, my car “Ihsan”, the plant on one corner of my room “Asr”, another plant is “Layla”.  There’s is a power to naming anything.  And the greatest of all names is the name God has chosen for us to connect with him “Allah”.  There is a mysterious connection between that and God Himself.  This is why we NEED revelation.  

so you can see God as he manifests ok thanks brother  I DISAGREE

Edited by Noor Taleb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

This is something you don’t seem to understand.  Why do you think in the traditions we are taught to name your children good names?  Because they have an effect on the named person.  And no, it isn’t arbitrary that Seyyidna Muhammad (S) for example was named “Muhammad” or Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was named “Ali. Etc etc.  it also is also not an accident that you were named what you were named by your parents. 

There is a reality associated with every name.  There’s is a power in naming anything.  When you name something you have a power of seeing it in a certain way.  Traditionally we are taught to give names to everything.  

For example, I have named my carpet that I pray on “Mumina”, my car “Ihsan”, the plant on one corner of my room “Asr”, another plant is “Layla”.  There’s is a power to naming anything.  And the greatest of all names is the name God has chosen for us to connect with him “Allah”.  There is a mysterious connection between that and God Himself.  This is why we NEED revelation.  

What affects ur brain is signals not literature. To demonstrate this I tell you an example, a child is not affected by words lie or truth, unless those words are changed into something that means to them. Such as I used to lie and it had no effect upon me until my mom punished me for it, after that this word created changes in my body. Whenever she said did you lie, I begin to be afraid of this signal even though I was not aware of its spelling. So, this signal was created by effect not by spelling. So, when lie signals an action. Likewise, Allah is signal of addressing to God, but it does not mean that It you know this signalling and you completely know Him. Imam Raza (عليه السلام) said: "Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is known from his opposite". When asked: "What is his opposite". Imam Reza (عليه السلام) said: "His attributes are his opposite, they are created but He is not created". So, he created those signals so that you can imply towards him but you still are unaware about How great He is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 5:57 PM, Shams of tabriz said:

The only thing that really is is that one Being; He is both the unchanging Absolute, the Unity, and the world-appearance as well. He is both creator and creation. 
It is, of course, important to experience this truth; but it’s perhaps just as important to understand it and to make this knowledge a part of one’s being. This is not just philosophy or theorizing. It is very important to fully comprehend this; otherwise, who knows what you might imagine yourself to be? Some weak,insignificant creature, perhaps!
 Now, this is a very useful concept for understanding that one’s eternal Self remains constant, inactive, and unchanged, even while one’s body and mind engages in actions.

La ilaha illalah.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I did not ignore your previous question. I was replying to other comments, sorry.

I disagree with the statements, because they emphasize that our existence,
 and the existence of God is one - by believing in that, one is ascribing a quality of ours to God, which is polytheistic.

 Nothing of ours can be compared or likened to God.

Do you speak Arabic?

This is from Allamah Tabatabai work Bidāyah al-Ḥikmah:

Upon having established that existence is fundamental in the outside, this chapter discusses whether these different existences are all different (mutabāyin) or are they all part of one reality that is gradational (tashkīkī). For example, when it is said that the sky exists, God exists, pizza exists; is existence in all of this one reality or is it something that differs from thing to thing, I.e. everything has its own reality of existence. Naturally, there are two views here:

1) Many scholars including Mullā Ṣadrā believed that existence is gradational and everything is one reality. Thus, if the sky exists and man exists, they all receive their existence from one thing, the only thing that is different is the intensity of their existence as existence is gradational.17

For example, light is known as that which is visible for itself and makes other things visible. Like a metal which is bright because there is light shining on it; the metal is not essentially bright. The reality of light exists everywhere where there is light whether it be a small candle or a floodlight. It is not as if weak light is not considered to be light, or a strong light is not considered to be light. It is not as if weak light contains some darkness, rather it is light and darkness is just the absence of light; it is not possible for them to become compound.18

2) Those who believe all of reality is constituted by one existence and the different existences with their intensities are merely perceptions which hold no truth. Just like the perception of a mirage. In other words, all multiplicity is imaginal and not real. This view is held by many Sufis.

‘Allāmah accepted the first view, in that the reality of existence in every instance (miṣdāq) is the same, however the levels of existence in different things differ. For this claim, two proofs must be offered:

The first must prove that existence possesses one reality in all instances (masādīq)

The second must prove that this one reality possesses multiple levels

In terms of existence possessing one reality in its instances, we previously mentioned that existence has one meaning, I.e. it has not been equivocally. As such, its instances all possess the same concept of existence.19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Handel
10 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I disagree with the statements, because they emphasize that our existence,
and the existence of God is one - by believing in that, one is ascribing a quality of ours to God, which is polytheistic.

Which is why Sufis say that only God is real, and that we aren't. 

If we and God were both equally real, then there would be a second God.

I think Sufis emphasize Tawhid more stronger than you yourself do, Simon.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Handel said:

Which is why Sufis say that only God is real, and that we aren't. 

If we and God were both equally real, then there would be a second God.

I think Sufis emphasize Tawhid more stronger than you yourself do, Simon.

Thanks.

 

1 hour ago, Guest Handel said:

Why? Simon seems to be implying Duotheism, which contradicts Tawhid. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

You’re funny. I take my religion and belief from the Holy Imams.

ʿal-Imam ʿal-Ṣādiq said [what’s to be understood]: “Allah is away from His creation, and His creation is away from Him.”

I said before:

11 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Nothing of ours can be compared or likened to God.

and actually, when someone says: “God is existent,” this is out of the narrowness of the phrase - and that we couldn’t give proof to the existence of God except by it, but in reality, God is the Creator of the existence. He is the Creator of everything, and nothing can be compared to Him.

1 hour ago, Guest Handel said:

Why? Simon seems to be implying Duotheism, which contradicts Tawhid. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I am not implying “Duotheism,” ʿal-Ḥāllaj, the famous Sufi scholar is, because he said: “I am the Ḥāqq,” he is emphasizing Duotheism, not me.

I’m a mūwāḥid that happily opposes any belief that Ahlul Bāyt opposed. I follow their words, and believe in their beliefs - and I don’t take a single word or belief from their mūḵḫālifin. The Qurʾan and sunnāh is enough for me.

I believe that tāfakur in Allah is ḥāram, and he who does that will perish.

I hope you understand.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

 

You’re funny. I take my religion and belief from the Holy Imams.

nearly all, if not all, of the ahadiths are not a direct quotations of what the Imams have said, but rather, the interpretation of what their followers understood. And this is very problematic as their could be huge misunderstanding of their words or the wrong usage of different words. So suggesting u take ur religion from “the holy Imams” is not true at all.

and not to mention that there are millions of texts still being investigated and translated. just because u havent read it in major books does not mean it doesn’t exist.

and are u the same guy that was on here a few years ago with a similar disproval of Wahdat al wujood?

Edited by Ibn Al-Shahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s reported that at one point, a man asked ʿal-Imam ʿal-Ṣādiq, “What is the proof that you have a Creator?” Imam J’afar ʿal-Ṣādiq responded with the following:

“I found myself subject to one of two options: either I created myself or something other than myself created me. If I created myself, I am also subject to one of two options: either I created my self while my self already existed - but then I would not need to create it since it already existed - or I created my self while I was nonexistent, but you already know that the nonexistent cannot bring about anything. Therefore, the third meaning is proven - that I have a Creator, Who is Lord of the Worlds.”

Another man challenged that thought, however, and told the Imam, “I am not a created (being).”

Imam ʿal-Ṣādiq said, “Then describe for me - if you were a created (being) - how would you be (what qualities describe a created being)?” The man thought for a while, and then paid attention to a piece of wood that was near him. “Long, wide, deep, short, moving, stationary… all of these are qualities of being created.”

Imam ʿal-Ṣādiq then said:

“If you do not know (how to differentiate) qualities of the created (being) as opposed to the not (created being), then consider yourself created due to these things which you see coming about in your own self.”

9 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

and are u the same guy that was on here a few years ago with a similar disproval of Wahdat al wujood?

No, I am not the same guy.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Kāshf ʾal-Ġhitʾā, volume 2, page 356, by J’afar bin Ḵḫīdr bin Yaḥyā bin Maṭār bin Sāyf ʾal-Junājī (Kāshif ʾal-Ġhitā).

He said: “For what disbelief is implied after, in the form of istilzām, such as: the denial of the Islamic essentials, and the [things] that recurred from the Master of the Creations, such as believing in jābr, tāfwīḍh, irjʾā, wāʾd, wāʾīd, qīdām ʾal-aʾlām, qīdām ʾal-mujarādat, tājsim, tāshbih bil-ḥāqiqa, ḥulūl, itiḥād, wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd or ʾal-māwjūd or ʾal-itiḥād, thubūt ʾal-zamān wāl-mākan or ʾal-kalām ʾal-nāfsi.”

Meaning, disbelief (kufr) is implied if one believes in wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd or ʾal-māwjūd, and the other things listed.

6tD2Bvs.jpg

 

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Handel
1 hour ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I am not implying “Duotheism

You are. If all things are not dependent on and existent through Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), then you are admitting another God and therefore Kafir. Do you not understand this?

The Sufis you've quoted have stated that we have no reality of ourselves but that our reality is of Allah's. This is what "Creator" and "Creation" mean in relation to each other. 

If we don't exist through Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Reality (al-Haqq, As-Samad etc), who is the only thing that can be called "Real" and "True", then where does our own existence derive?

You set yourself up for blatant contradiction, which is slightly amusing and slightly unsettling. The Qur'an, the Ahlul Bayt and the Imams all affirm what I am saying very strongly. But what you are saying, is that we have a reality separate from Allah and that Allah has a reality separate from our own - which is a definition of Shirk.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Israelite

Simple question. Are there any realities other than Allah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

And he created different animals

both are wrong translations

14 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Hadi Sabzavari says: (1) In the inclusion of [it] among the animals,

both of them are talking about "Hayavan" that means living creature not "Heywan" that refers to animal but because in common Farsi language of our era "Heywan" also uses to "Hayawan"  that translators take the wrong meaning ,I clearly remember that anti Shia channels used wrong interpretation of your marja in his Farsi speech about this matter that caused attack to other Shia marjas in Iran that they call women as Animals that they cut the part which he read from Mullah Sadra book & interpreted in wrong way because of his objection with Hawza of Qom that supports Mullah Sadra whch he for his enmity with Hawza of Qom interpreted Mulla Sadra text in wrong way that leads to attack to all Shia Marjas by anti Shia Farsi channel which  most of times they are using wrong & weird interpretation of his crew to attack all Shia marjas  by using their weird speeches & interpretations by their cherry picking from Shia texts that hawza of Qom  supports & interpretation it in wrong way that was wahabi procedure before but this cult make their work easier than before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guest Handel said:

You are. If all things are not dependent on and existent through Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), then you are admitting another God and therefore Kafir. Do you not understand this?

I explained that before. You are just trying to look for something to help yourself a little bit, and it’s clearly not working.

All things are in need of God, and existent through Him. But, this is not the definition of wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd.
Most, if not all of our scholars do tākfir of the person that believes in wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd, and I showed you.

From now on, if you don’t start debating plainly, I’ll start ignoring your replies.

Because, you are repeating things that had been already explained.

9 hours ago, Guest Handel said:

But what you are saying, is that we have a reality separate from Allah and that Allah has a reality separate from our own - which is a definition of Shirk.

These were words I quoted from Ahlul Bayt, and you said that it’s a definition of shirk.

7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

both of them are talking about "Hayavan" that means living creature not "Heywan" that refers to animal but because in common Farsi language of our era "Heywan" also uses to "Hayawan"  that translators take the wrong meaning ,I clearly remember that anti Shia channels used wrong interpretation of your marja in his Farsi speech about this matter that caused attack to other Shia marjas in Iran that they call women as Animals that they cut the part which he read from Mullah Sadra book & interpreted in wrong way because of his objection with Hawza of Qom that supports Mullah Sadra whch he for his enmity with Hawza of Qom interpreted Mulla Sadra text in wrong way that leads to attack to all Shia Marjas by anti Shia Farsi channel which  most of times they are using wrong & weird interpretation of his crew to attack all Shia marjas  by using their weird speeches & interpretations by their cherry picking from Shia texts that hawza of Qom  supports & interpretation it in wrong way that was wahabi procedure before but this cult make their work easier than before. 

I know about that. I also know that in ilm ʾal-mānṭiq and luġha, ḥāyawan can also mean life, like this verse below.

output-onlinepngtools.png.733e59f76c29c6f6cdfb42c10a92a183.png

But, in the context of what Mullā Ṣādra said, he clearly meant animals.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I explained that before. You are just trying to look for something to help yourself a little bit, and it’s clearly not working.

All things are in need of God, and existent through Him. But, this is not the definition of wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd.
Most, if not all of our scholars do tākfir of the person that believes in wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd, and I showed you.

From now on, if you don’t start debating plainly, I’ll start ignoring your replies.

Because, you are repeating things that had been already explained.

These were words I quoted from Ahlul Bayt, and you said that it’s a definition of shirk.

I know about that. I also know that in ilm ʾal-mānṭiq and luġha, ḥāyawan can also mean life, like this verse below.

output-onlinepngtools.png.733e59f76c29c6f6cdfb42c10a92a183.png

But, in the context of what Mullā Ṣādra said, he clearly meant animals.

Those of us who are in support of Irfan/Sufism, do not disagree with the fact that God and creation are separate.

We also do not disagree that creation is not God and that God is not creation.

In other words, we agree with you, but you are unable to agree with us. 

We respect your view and we hope it helps you achieve your aim in your path to God.

May God give us all the ability to see things more clearly.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 9:28 PM, Simon the Canaanite said:

I am not implying “Duotheism,” ʿal-Ḥāllaj, the famous Sufi scholar is, because he said: “I am the Ḥāqq,” he is emphasizing Duotheism, not me.

Naturally, it is very difficult for people at a lower station of knowledge to recognize or appreciate the view of one at the highest station, and it is because of this that they so often deride and persecute 
the saints. On the other hand, one who has reached the final state cannot malign the preliminary stations as incorrect; for it was by the ascension of the path, by way of these very stations, that he arrived at his Goal. Once there, he sees that all the people of the world are at the station on the path where God has placed them. How can he fault their ignorance? If anyone at all can understand him or even hear his voice, it is those at the stations most near to him. The great majority of men are far below him, and must imagine him to be a madman. As Lao Tze has said, “If it were not the highest Truth, it would not be laughed at by the majority of people.” 
 Within Islam, as within all religious traditions, there are individuals of varying degrees of spiritual experience and understanding, with the mystic standing at the highest degree, opposed at the other end of the scale by those pious and pretentious people whose understanding of spiritual experience is dim. These two contrary elements within any religious tradition tend naturally to conflict mightily with one another; and, in Islam, as elsewhere, this conflict has often resulted in the extreme persecution and martyrdom of the mystics. One of the best known and most often cited examples is that of the martyred Sufi saint, al-Hallaj.

 I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I; we 
 are two spirits dwelling in one body. If you see me, you see 
 Him; and if you see Him, you see us both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bach
10 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

All things are in need of God, and existent through Him. But, this is not the definition of wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd.
Most, if not all of our scholars do tākfir of the person that believes in wāḥdat ʾal-wujūd, and I showed you.

Maybe the scholars declaring takfir are real kafir? they clearly do not know what Tawhid is, neither do you Simon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bach
7 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

Multiple reality thing :confused: never heard of that. 

Neither. Noor Taleb is living up to his "confused" description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Bach said:

Neither. Noor Taleb is living up to his "confused" description.

Salam.

Neither. Neither what? Do you mean neither have I?

Living up to his "confused" description? -He is a she, and if you decide to stick around you'll start to empathise a little more with the people who are on here like Noor Taleb and their backgrounds.

I thought I should clear up that "confusion" for you.

Edited by aaaz1618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bach
5 minutes ago, aaaz1618 said:

Salam.

Neither. Neither what? Do you mean neither have I?

Yes, neither have I heard Sufis ever refer to there being multiple realities (or Gods), they always emphasize the Unity of Allah far stronger than even the regular Muslim. They, however (in the case of Simon's disdainful reaction to Sufism) they negate our own existence - in that Allah is the only reality and we have no reality of ourselves. We don't exist except through the transcendent reality of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), which is the embodiment of the Shahada itself. 

The Muhammadun Reality or Nur of Rasulullah is a completely different topic. Allah is the only thing that is truly real, according to proper orthodox Islam. Sufism just affirms this objective truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aaaz1618 said:

He is a she,

He meant me, my description, and I am a guy.

I’bn Arābi says in “the Gems of Wisdom,” (Fuṣūṣ ʿal-Ḥikām) page 201 (or 116 in the English translation) that the Pharaoh died a purified believer.

ODXHNKz.jpg

2WJ9hhZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aaaz1618 said:

Salam.

Neither. Neither what? Do you mean neither have I?

Living up to his "confused" description? -He is a she, and if you decide to stick around you'll start to empathise a little more with the people who are on here like Noor Taleb and their backgrounds.

I thought I should clear up that "confusion" for you.

:cryhappy: 

thank you :byecry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Guest Bach said:

Neither. Noor Taleb is living up to his "confused" description.

... :dry:

Edited by Noor Taleb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

He meant me, my description, and I am a guy.

I’bn Arābi says in “the Gems of Wisdom,” (Fuṣūṣ ʿal-Ḥikām) page 201 (or 116 in the English translation) that the Pharaoh died a purified believer.

ODXHNKz.jpg

2WJ9hhZ.jpg

Some people read Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra in order to nourish their intellectual faculties in the hopes to make them more receptive to the Influx of the Spirit in their heart.  

But then there are others (who are very rare and exceptional people) like yourself who read Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra in order to attempt to disprove the Irfani world view.   This attitude  resembles someone demonic or diabolical.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 2:30 AM, Abu Nur said:

This is from Allamah Tabatabai work Bidāyah al-Ḥikmah:

Upon having established that existence is fundamental in the outside, this chapter discusses whether these different existences are all different (mutabāyin) or are they all part of one reality that is gradational (tashkīkī). For example, when it is said that the sky exists, God exists, pizza exists; is existence in all of this one reality or is it something that differs from thing to thing, I.e. everything has its own reality of existence. Naturally, there are two views here:

1) Many scholars including Mullā Ṣadrā believed that existence is gradational and everything is one reality. Thus, if the sky exists and man exists, they all receive their existence from one thing, the only thing that is different is the intensity of their existence as existence is gradational.17

For example, light is known as that which is visible for itself and makes other things visible. Like a metal which is bright because there is light shining on it; the metal is not essentially bright. The reality of light exists everywhere where there is light whether it be a small candle or a floodlight. It is not as if weak light is not considered to be light, or a strong light is not considered to be light. It is not as if weak light contains some darkness, rather it is light and darkness is just the absence of light; it is not possible for them to become compound.18

2) Those who believe all of reality is constituted by one existence and the different existences with their intensities are merely perceptions which hold no truth. Just like the perception of a mirage. In other words, all multiplicity is imaginal and not real. This view is held by many Sufis.

‘Allāmah accepted the first view, in that the reality of existence in every instance (miṣdāq) is the same, however the levels of existence in different things differ. For this claim, two proofs must be offered:

The first must prove that existence possesses one reality in all instances (masādīq)

The second must prove that this one reality possesses multiple levels

In terms of existence possessing one reality in its instances, we previously mentioned that existence has one meaning, I.e. it has not been equivocally. As such, its instances all possess the same concept of existence.19

In Mustādrak Sāfinat ʿal-Biḥār, volume 1, page 315, in the subject (word) of philosophy, by ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Ali ʿal-Nāmazi ʿal-Shāroūdi.

He said: “The contemporary philosopher, ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī, the promoter (1) of philosophy, the author of Tāfsīr ʿal-Mīzān which he made a lot of mistakes in: such as believing in the belief of mājūs, in the ‘marriage’ between brothers and sisters from the children of Adam - see (for it) the beginning of Sūrāt An-Nisāʼ, and check to investigate in what the truth is [in this matter], Ġhāwaṣ Biḥār Anwār Kālimat ʿal-Anwār ʿal-ilāhiyah in ʿal-Biḥār (2), the chapter of the marriage of the children of Adam, and how the offspring began.”

(1) promoter: as in, the advocate - person that promotes something.
(2) He meant, Biḥār ʿal-Anwār, and the aforementioned chapter can be found in volume 11, page 218.

TQwYV2V.jpg

Tāfsīr ʿal-Mīzān, volume 4, page 137 (and volume 7, page 199 in the English version), by Mūḥāmad Ḥusāyn ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī.

He said: “Second: Marriage of the first generation after Adam and his wife (I.e., of their immediate children), was done between brothers and sisters (I.e., Adam’s sons married his daughters), because they were the only human males and females at that time. There was no harm in this; because it is a legislative matter and it depends on the discretion of Allāh; He may allow it one day and disallow it another day.”

9SUeq3A.jpg

YBXhoga.jpg

And this belief is very wrong, because it goes to say that all humans (including the holy, such as: Prophets) were born out of zinā and incest. Nāūḏhubillah.

And Ahlul Bāyt opposed it, as mentioned before in Biḥār ʿal-Anwār.

30 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

But then there are others (who are very rare and exceptional people) like yourself who read Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra in order to attempt to disprove the Irfani world view.   This attitude  resembles someone demonic or diabolical.  

May Allah guide us all.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...